Cliff notes:
Not all discrimination is bad.
Laws do not change society. Society must change to pass laws. If it already changed then it is redundant to pass the law. Work harder to capitalize on the momentum instead of bogging down with a practice that has few pros and many cons.
Minimum wage harms business, consumers and people who need these jobs.
Affirmative action is a draconic practice and destabilizes social fabric.

Now hear me out. This will take some explaining but I think anyone who is interested in the discussion will come away with a net benefit.

Imagine you are a man of undesirable race in some neighborhood. Let us add some context to it.

Let us say you are a black man in a white neighborhood. Some people in this neighborhood share racist stereotypes about your skin color, which makes you undesirable. However there are some statistics with no fault of your own that do make you undesirable race/group/ethnicity.

For instance large population of blacks lives in bad neighborhoods and hiring a worker from such a neighborhood may open yourself to risk. Risk such as the worker being held up due to conflict in his neighborhood (loss of productivity). His friends may be gangsters and cause trouble to your business should he get fired or if he invites them to meet him near your work. All these represent a potential risk. Nothing racist about risk and demographics. No one here is saying the black race is inferior. They like everyone else in different situations represent different risks.

Women are prone to getting pregnant. Hiring a woman means that she is a loss of productivity when pregnant.

Hiring someone young means they do not have experience.

All these groups represent different risks. This is why when you go to find a job you negotiate with your boss. You may offer a lower wage, better credentials, good references or something else that I did not think about. This way you mitigate the risk you bring with you.

So when you come up to your boss you can openly discuss these issues. They can say “Mr Jones you are black and your kind is not very reliable”. Then you would answer “I know sir but I can come in and work for free for several weeks show you that I am indeed reliable. If you still do not like me after then I will have no problem with that” or “Well Sir how about you pay me half the wage you would be willing to pay someone who you will hire for a given amount of time?”

Now you look like a more attractive commodity to the employer and may improve your chances of being hired.

What if the employer says “Well you know I have no problem with you but in this area people will torch my place or shoot you for working with me” or “We don’t like your kind over here boy, you better scoot!”.

You may think daamn I can’t fight this gross social injustice on my own. I need to band together with people like me and demand government to do something about it. So you get a sufficient number of people who agree with you and you pass the law that does not allow discrimination.

This law has some harmful effects on the social fabric of the country. The very first thing it does is that it drives discriminators underground. Just because a law passes does not mean they will stop thinking the way they do.

The reality of this has some serious consequences. I challenge anyone interested to research this for themselves. No minority gained acceptance in the society without the target society fundamentally changing from within. This means people who used to think in a bigoted way changed their views on their own.

So if you gain a majority that thinks that discrimination is wrong, you are already on the right track. That alone is already enough to benefit these people. What this means is that at least 50+% of the people abhor discrimination and will work to counter it privately. This group is made up of producers, workers, landowners, entrepreneurs and employers. 50% of people that surround them have the same view as them. This group can provide the jobs that have been denied.

Let us say the group does not realize this and passes the law anyways. So now we have “racists” on the underground. Look what happens. First the people who said “Well you know I have no problem with you but in this area people will torch my place or shoot you for working with me” / “We don’t like your kind over here boy, you better scoot!” , these people will still work to undermine the law.

Anyone that worked for a living knows that a boss wields a lot of power. Your boss alone can find a non discriminatory reason to fire you. What happens if you're a minority and both your colleagues and customers work together to undermine you? “Racists” are people just like you and I and therefore we must assume that many of them are just as smart. This means it is not hard for a group of people to organize and to undermine you in a way that will cost you your job. This means as an individual you must spend your productive energy trying to defend yourself against these attacks. You have to take necessary precautions so you will be able to prove these people broke the law. Again this consumes energy.

Now we must remember these racists are a minority. This means that it becomes harder for these people to attack you in a way that will make you lose your job. You may have a co worker that would defend you. Your boss may be on your side. You may have customers as your witness. People who live in these demographics are in no danger of experiencing discrimination.

The demographics that are in danger are the ones where the so called racists are in fact the majority. These racists then go ahead and make it not worth it for an individual to seek employment. This nullifies any benefit the law provides.

Then we must remember the group of people who must discriminate out of necessity and those that discriminate based on risk. Surely no one will argue that these people are as bad as ignorant racists. Many of these people might have mistakenly voted for this law to pass! However in the eyes of the law these people are considered to be just as bad as the racists.

The problem that occurs now is that inadvertently these people have to pursue the same tactics that racists do to avoid taking on risks. An employer may say there is no jobs offered to a black man and then interview a white man. If he is caught doing so beyond any shadow of doubt he is persecuted the same way a hate spouting racist is. He may claim to be part of the group that does not want risk. Problem is that there is no way for us to tell. If we make an exception then a racist can say the same thing and we would have no way to prove his intentions otherwise.

So now we have non racists and racists on the same side creating problems for both the government and for the people that the law is meant to protect.
There is even more incentive for employers to discriminate against the protected groups. These groups now represent a new risk. This risk is that now you can be sued if your actions are misconstrued as discriminatory.

Best way to fight discrimination is to continue to educate people and provide support to people who are being discriminated against.

Minimum wage is a horrible practice that harms the young and inexperienced. The young and inexperienced labor have nothing else to compete with other than the wage. This skews that benefit towards older demographics and undermines risky groups.

There is no justification for people to defend minimum wage. The jobs that minimum wage effects are the jobs that are not meant to support a family. These jobs are meant for people who need extra income, not primary income. Teenagers, people that work a second job, college students are the ones who take up these jobs.

Since these groups do not have means or desire for legal battles, discrimination goes unpunished in these areas. When you eliminate wage as the means of competition then there is more incentive for the employer to avoid groups that represent greater risk.

Minimum wage shifts the cost to the consumer gaining no net benefit for the target demographic. Minimum wage is a condition that affects all the participants (businesses). Because of this the rise in prices will be proportional to the increase in expenses.

Then one might say that these stubborn parts of society need to be thought a lesson. They might think that the best pursuit for equality would be to institute affirmative action. The problem with this assessment is that there are some areas that naturally attract a certain type of group. No one tries to institute affirmative action in NFL. Many colleges would close down male sports because a small number of females would threaten legal action. Is it fair to keep such a law in place?

Another problem that becomes evident is that affirmative action puts emphasis on genetic/racial/demographic characteristics over merit. Merit in this argument is an aggregate of the pros and cons (risks) a person brings to the table. This draws parallels to societies that had rigid social castes. In those societies the group that was slighted harbored great hatred towards the group that benefited. One example would be the Spanish colonies. The fabric of these societies proved to be far weaker then the free society of newly formed United States.

Affirmative action also erodes the confidence of the group that benefits. There is always the question of whether the position was attained through merit or through a crutch. Members that are viewed as weaker in society do not fare well no matter how progressive the society is.

It is in the interest of the group that organizes itself to spend their energy towards providing a network that allows it to compete on equal ground with people who discriminate against these groups. To rely on the government to do this is not to learn the lessons that history has thought us.

StrawberryClock

06-08-2009, 02:22

You should be a pundit. You might be the next this guy. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcYwRvpXfCs&feature=related)

Baralis

06-08-2009, 02:22

As I have said before. I am for segregating people based on ethenticity and or religious beliefs. We will never live peacfully in a big "melting pot". Someone will always be preyed on.

StrawberryClock

06-08-2009, 02:26

As I have said before. I am for segregating people based on ethenticity and or religious beliefs. We will never live peacfully in a big "melting pot". Someone will always be preyed on.

There are quite a few people who integrate and adopt western culture as well as intermingle quite easily with every other race as I have witnessed here in Canada quite often.

Baralis

06-08-2009, 02:27

There are quite a few people who integrate and adopt western culture as well as intermingle quite easily with every other race as I have witnessed here in Canada quite often.

I never said no one would. But not everyone will.

StrawberryClock

06-08-2009, 02:29

I never said no one would. But not everyone will.

And those people quite often form a natural segregation which generally gets weaker with time.

Look at the natives, more then a third of them are mixed-race, often with whites.

Silverhandorder

06-08-2009, 02:30

I think all three of us can agree that no one should be forced to take up western culture.

StrawberryClock

06-08-2009, 02:32

I think all three of us can agree that no one should be forced to take up western culture.

Except me. Western culture is the shit. I want to see every minority integrate with western culture so it loses its whites only appeal.

EDIT: And the world as well, but of course mixed in with their own cultures.

Silverhandorder

06-08-2009, 02:35

Except me. Western culture is the shit. I want to see every minority integrate with western culture so it loses its whites only appeal.

EDIT: And the world as well, but of course mixed in with their own cultures.

The key is forced.

StrawberryClock

06-08-2009, 02:36

The key is forced.

Well played. We tried forcing people to take up our culture.

Didn't work.

Honest Bill

06-08-2009, 02:40

Some good points there. However i'm not so sure i agree with you on the matter of minimum wage. There eare plenty of people who are forced to rely on minimum wage for their primary income. Wouldn't know about the USA though

Qikdraw

06-08-2009, 02:47

There are quite a few people who integrate and adopt western culture as well as intermingle quite easily with every other race as I have witnessed here in Canada quite often.

Have you ever been to Folklorama (http://www.buzzle.com/articles/winnipeg-manitoba-folklorama.html) in Winnipeg? Its really cool and a lot of fun.

ZeaL-

06-08-2009, 02:52

Silverhandorder, I think your main problem is that the way you write up threads and shit shows you are trying to appeal to a certain few members in this site. It doesn't seem like you are trying to open anyones eyes to anything. In fact all you do is alienate people, and make yourself seem like a complete buffoon.

StrawberryClock

06-08-2009, 02:58

Have you ever been to Folklorama (http://www.buzzle.com/articles/winnipeg-manitoba-folklorama.html) in Winnipeg? Its really cool and a lot of fun.

Hell no, I may be tolerant of other cultures and races but I ain't tolerant of no Manitoban. Those motherfuckers need to stop welfaring off Ontario.

Silverhandorder

06-08-2009, 03:03

Some good points there. However i'm not so sure i agree with you on the matter of minimum wage. There eare plenty of people who are forced to rely on minimum wage for their primary income. Wouldn't know about the USA though

I would have to agree on the fact that some people rely on it as a primary income. My point is that it should not be some one's primary income. I don't have a full solution yet, however minimum wage does harm. I rather those people who need it as primary means rely on welfare.

Silverhandorder, I think your main problem is that the way you write up threads and shit shows you are trying to appeal to a certain few members in this site. It doesn't seem like you are trying to open anyones eyes to anything. In fact all you do is alienate people, and make yourself seem like a complete buffoon.

Then don't reply. I want to start a discussion and I want to appeal to everyone.

Honest Bill

06-08-2009, 03:07

I would have to agree on the fact that some people rely on it as a primary income. My point is that it should not be some one's primary income. I don't have a full solution yet, however minimum wage does harm. I rather those people who need it as primary means rely on welfare.

I'm not sure that is really a viable solution. That's just a whole extra group of people for society to potentially resent. Not to mention that it is probably as harmful to a person's self esteem as something such as affirmative action

Qikdraw

06-08-2009, 03:11

Hell no, I may be tolerant of other cultures and races but I ain't tolerant of no Manitoban. Those motherfuckers need to stop welfaring off Ontario.

LOL

Fucker.

Silverhandorder

06-08-2009, 03:18

I'm not sure that is really a viable solution. That's just a whole extra group of people for society to potentially resent. Not to mention that it is probably as harmful to a person's self esteem as something such as affirmative action
Well we already have welfare. Instead of getting a 300$ check they will get a 400$ check. It's not like it is either minimum wage or welfare. Welfare is around no matter what (currently :D).

Honest Bill

06-08-2009, 03:25

Well we already have welfare. Instead of getting a 300$ check they will get a 400$ check. It's not like it is either minimum wage or welfare. Welfare is around no matter what (currently :D).

Well of course, but ideally, welfare is merely a means for survival for those unable to work

ZeaL-

06-08-2009, 03:43

I want to start a discussion and I want to appeal to everyone.

Well, the title doesn't really do that well. Also, the manner in which you express yourself doesn't. This is actually one of your better ones, though...

Taroth

06-08-2009, 03:57

What your saying is extremely idealistic and simply unrealistic in the majority of business sectors.

The fundamental problem is our labor surplus in the labor market. What this means is that if you do something like abolish minimum wage, then workers will be forced to go to lower wages across the board. Due to rampant unemployment, bosses can demand things like "$4 an hour or I'll hire the punk off the street". You may say hiring the punk means greater risk, but bosses can exploit this as well. The job that a grown man wouldn't do for $4 an hour would be picked up by a teen for $3 because they'll do anything for work. Then, of course, society has less buying power, can't buy as much so bosses demand workers work for less, etc.

The second problem is that you assume that by eliminating penalties for racism, we somehow will fix the issue. The hundred years after the civil war disprove that hypothesis. Racism is more often an emotional issue than a economic issue. The sad reality is that bosses have no incentive to "respect" minority workers in the slightest. By constantly claiming they're high-risk and untrustworthy, bosses can continue to abuse their workers. This makes racism economical, as well as emotional, thus expanding the problem- not fixing it.

Like I said earlier, racism is an emotional issue not a rational or economical one. By driving it "underground", it makes each generation less hateful than the previous one. No one can deny that the parents of the baby boomers are more racist than the baby boomers, and the children of the baby boomers are probably less racist than their parents as well. Maybe racism will never be fully eliminated, but despite the pain, this method is working.

On the topic of competition, I think its fine that teens don't have an ultimate bargaining tool against adults. Chances are if an adult and a teen are looking for a low-paying job, the adult needs it a hell of a lot more. Having an inexperienced teenager working for $4 an hour instead of an experienced adult with 2 kids for $7 an hour does not help an economy. The kid does a worse job, and statistically will be more likely to spend the money on nontaxable things like drugs, unlike the responsible adult. Teens can compete in ways like working hours and that sort of thing.

The bottom line is that anyone looking for the best interest of America (locally) must accept that Americans need money to buy American goods/services from American companies. Abolishing minimum wage and accepting racism puts less dollars in the hands of American consumers, which hurts everyone who only does business in America.

StrawberryClock

06-08-2009, 04:14

What a rebuttal. This is heating up so don't mind if I take off my pants.

Sharuk

06-08-2009, 04:20

What a rebuttal. This is heating up so don't mind if I take off my pants.

Well now we will know what is under a StrawberryClock's pants, sounds like something out of Strawberry Shortcake to be honett

StrawberryClock

06-08-2009, 04:21

Well now we will know what is under a StrawberryClock's pants, sounds like something out of Strawberry Shortcake to be honett

A tight vagina? That means I can finger myself all day.

Wow, sucks not be me.

Silverhandorder

06-08-2009, 04:26

What your saying is extremely idealistic and simply unrealistic in the majority of business sectors.

The fundamental problem is our labor surplus in the labor market. What this means is that if you do something like abolish minimum wage, then workers will be forced to go to lower wages across the board. Due to rampant unemployment, bosses can demand things like "$4 an hour or I'll hire the punk off the street". You may say hiring the punk means greater risk, but bosses can exploit this as well. The job that a grown man wouldn't do for $4 an hour would be picked up by a teen for $3 because they'll do anything for work. Then, of course, society has less buying power, can't buy as much so bosses demand workers work for less, etc.

Do you know why workers in jobs that pay well over minimum wage will get paid less? Because deflation is going to set in. This is when your dollars will buy more. In a competitive environment a person who has a lower wage to pay will proportionally lower the prices, since that is the only variable in the cost of total good that changes.

If there is capital people will work it. If there is more profit then the bosses can buy up more capital and put more people to work. This is not disputed by any school of economics.

The second problem is that you assume that by eliminating penalties for racism, we somehow will fix the issue. The hundred years after the civil war disprove that hypothesis. Racism is more often an emotional issue than a economic issue. The sad reality is that bosses have no incentive to "respect" minority workers in the slightest. By constantly claiming they're high-risk and untrustworthy, bosses can continue to abuse their workers. This makes racism economical, as well as emotional, thus expanding the problem- not fixing it.

I would think civil war is a prime example of how laws against discrimination do not work. Two societies the one in the north vs the one in the south. Guess what ended the unfair treatment of blacks on Montgomery buses. It was not the laws. It was them banding together as a community. They made the city hurt.

Same way the south was reclaimed after the civil war. Whites banded together to shut out blacks out of political and economic power. Only 100 years later did they organize enough to reverse it. Problem is that they went a little bit too far.

Like I said earlier, racism is an emotional issue not a rational or economical one. By driving it "underground", it makes each generation less hateful than the previous one. No one can deny that the parents of the baby boomers are more racist than the baby boomers, and the children of the baby boomers are probably less racist than their parents as well. Maybe racism will never be fully eliminated, but despite the pain, this method is working.

Try running a business on emotions. I want to see how long that will last. Underground racism does not disappear. It stays there, since these issues are not addressed they grow. Business will continue to assume that blacks are undesirable as long as many of them live in projects. Women will continue to be less productive when they are pregnant.

On the topic of competition, I think its fine that teens don't have an ultimate bargaining tool against adults. Chances are if an adult and a teen are looking for a low-paying job, the adult needs it a hell of a lot more. Having an inexperienced teenager working for $4 an hour instead of an experienced adult with 2 kids for $7 an hour does not help an economy. The kid does a worse job, and statistically will be more likely to spend the money on nontaxable things like drugs, unlike the responsible adult. Teens can compete in ways like working hours and that sort of thing.

Giving monopoly to adults will not give you more productivity. Furthermore as I said before teens are not the only ones who may bargain with their wage.

Don't paint with such a broad brush. I could say blacks are more likely to buy drugs and therefore should not be give jobs.

The bottom line is that anyone looking for the best interest of America (locally) must accept that Americans need money to buy American goods/services from American companies. Abolishing minimum wage and accepting racism puts less dollars in the hands of American consumers, which hurts everyone who only does business in America.

Yeah and how are American businessmen gona make new factories if you raising their operating costs and shrinking their profits.

Taroth

06-08-2009, 05:08

Theres a few points that I dont think you responded to, but I'll readdress them at the end so you can point out your rebuttal/address/concede them.

Do you know why workers in jobs that pay well over minimum wage will get paid less? Because deflation is going to set in. This is when your dollars will buy more. In a competitive environment a person who has a lower wage to pay will proportionally lower the prices, since that is the only variable in the cost of total good that changes.

Ok I need you to rephrase this because I have no idea what "wage to pay" is and a Google search didn't turn up anything.

If there is capital people will work it. If there is more profit then the bosses can buy up more capital and put more people to work. This is not disputed by any school of economics.

This is certainly the case, but doesn't tell the whole story. Profits aren't simply turned into new jobs. A portion goes to buying new stuff (relying on this will eventually lead to a monopoly but initially helpful), a portion goes to the owner's pockets (creating an increasingly uneven distribution of wealth and other problems), and a portion goes to making/maintaining jobs (the goal). Thus the issue is that a part of every dollar the company makes will disappear into a bank account and not circulating in the economy. I'll go into this deeper if you want to extend the point.

I would think civil war is a prime example of how laws against discrimination do not work. Two societies the one in the north vs the one in the south. Guess what ended the unfair treatment of blacks on Montgomery buses. It was not the laws. It was them banding together as a community. They made the city hurt.

Same way the south was reclaimed after the civil war. Whites banded together to shut out blacks out of political and economic power. Only 100 years later did they organize enough to reverse it. Problem is that they went a little bit too far.

Actually I think the civil war is the perfect example of how ignoring discrimination creates massive problems. By allowing unlimited discrimination, the south became reliant on discrimination economically. IMO, if slavery was outlawed before the outburst of cotton, the civil war probably wouldn't have happened because the south wouldn't have really needed slaves.

Yes I would agree there are multiple ways to check discrimination, social organizing would be one of them. However I find it untimely and unreliable compared to laws. Reason being is that social movements can be stifled and/or ignored. Clever oppressors can use mechanisms (depending on the oppressed group) to prevent social movements from gaining speed. Grandfather clause, poll tax, and the KKK are all good examples of this. Laws are much, much harder to beat and last infinitely. Laws also make people hurt in the same way social movements do.

Try running a business on emotions. I want to see how long that will last. Underground racism does not disappear. It stays there, since these issues are not addressed they grow. Business will continue to assume that blacks are undesirable as long as many of them live in projects. Women will continue to be less productive when they are pregnant.

Businesses cant be ran on emotion. I agree that at the moment, there is the angry white male who resents the increasing presence of minorities and women for one reason or another. What I disagree on is that the issues will grow. Since racism (generally) isn't based on fact, but exaggerated stereotype, over time as the truth becomes more obvious. As racists die off and their kids are less racist, racism will decrease and this will become less of a problem. Women, on the other hand, have a more complicated problem because they have real (although maybe or maybe not very significant) economic disadvantages over men. There is no inherent economic advantage of a white man over a black man and I think over time this will reduce racism.

Giving monopoly to adults will not give you more productivity. Furthermore as I said before teens are not the only ones who may bargain with their wage.

Thats fair. However I would argue that you maintain a more productive workforce and healthier economy by generally giving open jobs to adults over teens. As I mentioned earlier, wage bargaining is fine until you reach the minimum wage. Without that bottom, wages would drop until the job demand meets job supply. Considering the amount of illegals flowing into this country every day, that could be very, very low.

Don't paint with such a broad brush. I could say blacks are more likely to buy drugs and therefore should not be give jobs.

I'm simply saying that teens have fewer responsibilities and pay less taxes, and thus are less beneficial as money receivers in an economy.

Yeah and how are American businessmen gona make new factories if you raising their operating costs and shrinking their profits.

Who's raising their operating costs or shrinking their profits? Maintaining the current minimum wage isn't, to my understanding, changing anything.

Now the points I mentioned in the beginning.
1. What incentive do bosses have to begin to respect minorities more.
2. What do you propose would stop the wage of what would now be a minimum wage job from dropping to an average of much less?

Let me know if there are any points you wish for me to elaborate on more or don't factually agree.

Silverhandorder

06-08-2009, 06:05

Ok I need you to rephrase this because I have no idea what "wage to pay" is and a Google search didn't turn up anything.

Alright imagine there is companies A, B and C.

To make a product all three companies have to pay a wage (1), buy materials (2) and produce the good (3). A simplistic version of variables that go into the cost of the product.

If materials and methods of production do not change and only the wage changes then the only way the companies can reduce the cost of the good is when the wage goes down. In reality all three change. So this is how companies compete. They may find cheaper materials, they may produce at less time and less materials wasted or they can pay less. Any of these would reduce the cost of the good.

So if wage was set at an arbitrary level then the cost of paying a higher wage would directly translate to a higher price. This means that there is no competition in that regard between companies and they are effected the same way.

So companies that reduce wages can under cut the prices to steal customers from other companies.

This is certainly the case, but doesn't tell the whole story. Profits aren't simply turned into new jobs. A portion goes to buying new stuff (relying on this will eventually lead to a monopoly but initially helpful), a portion goes to the owner's pockets (creating an increasingly uneven distribution of wealth and other problems), and a portion goes to making/maintaining jobs (the goal). Thus the issue is that a part of every dollar the company makes will disappear into a bank account and not circulating in the economy. I'll go into this deeper if you want to extend the point.

First I would like to point out that only permanent monopolies can be achieved when the state gives you monopoly rites. Like MTA in NYC, post office, cable companies or the FED.

There is more money to be made in the long run by expanding business. A business that pockets money can not grow. This business will be reduced to being only a minor player in the grand scheme of things.

Big business can not corner a large market share if it does not compete by lowering prices, innovate or reduce wages. If people are willing to work for smaller wage the business can capture a greater market share (and put more people to work). It can even achieve a monopoly. However this monopoly will only last as long as the business provides competitive services.

Big business can not pocket money since the investors demand that it expands, this is why they invest in it.

Actually I think the civil war is the perfect example of how ignoring discrimination creates massive problems. By allowing unlimited discrimination, the south became reliant on discrimination economically. IMO, if slavery was outlawed before the outburst of cotton, the civil war probably wouldn't have happened because the south wouldn't have really needed slaves.

Actually we lost a million Americans and decimated half of our country to achieve a goal most nations done through peaceful means. What is worse is that the civil war was not fought over slaves but over the state rights. There were tariffs put in place that hurt the south and such similar laws.

The south was going to go away from slavery eventually anyways because slave labor can not compete with industrialization. Furthermore it would have been more economic for federal government to buy out all the slaves and set them free instead of fighting a war.

Yes I would agree there are multiple ways to check discrimination, social organizing would be one of them. However I find it untimely and unreliable compared to laws. Reason being is that social movements can be stifled and/or ignored. Clever oppressors can use mechanisms (depending on the oppressed group) to prevent social movements from gaining speed. Grandfather clause, poll tax, and the KKK are all good examples of this. Laws are much, much harder to beat and last infinitely. Laws also make people hurt in the same way social movements do.

My main point is that an organized minority can create a social network that will protect their own. Whether they are white or black does not matter. I brought two examples. Rose Parks for blacks and Reclamation for the whites.

In grand scheme of things society needs to change. Laws merely reflect on how far along the society has went. One problem is that by making anti discrimination laws we create bad things. We drive good discrimination underground, the group fighting for the laws stops at the half way mark and lets this huge network to stagnate. If only 10% of people supported anti discrimination law and it was passed anyways we would see no effect. Hence the comparison between north and south societies before the civil rights act.

Businesses cant be ran on emotion. I agree that at the moment, there is the angry white male who resents the increasing presence of minorities and women for one reason or another. What I disagree on is that the issues will grow. Since racism (generally) isn't based on fact, but exaggerated stereotype, over time as the truth becomes more obvious. As racists die off and their kids are less racist, racism will decrease and this will become less of a problem. Women, on the other hand, have a more complicated problem because they have real (although maybe or maybe not very significant) economic disadvantages over men. There is no inherent economic advantage of a white man over a black man and I think over time this will reduce racism.

Not in today's environment. Many black people live in projects in my city. As I wrote in OP that carries risks with it. One look at their job application would show their address. They can be denied a job even if they are white. You can clean up those neighborhoods and such. However that is a side issue and should be addressed separately. An owner that needs to make a profit is not going to wait for your neighborhood to be cleaned up. He would ask you to come back when it is.

When my mother worked in the private sector she undercut the people competing with her for the job by 20 grand. Guess what this statistic is spun negatively now a days. Wages once again is a great tool for disadvantaged.

When talking about discrimination it speeds up the process. It brings it out in the open where the person can defend him self against accusations.

Thats fair. However I would argue that you maintain a more productive workforce and healthier economy by generally giving open jobs to adults over teens. As I mentioned earlier, wage bargaining is fine until you reach the minimum wage. Without that bottom, wages would drop until the job demand meets job supply. Considering the amount of illegals flowing into this country every day, that could be very, very low.

No birthright citizenship, no emergency room access and no hiring of illegals would solve that problem. I addressed low wages earlier.

I'm simply saying that teens have fewer responsibilities and pay less taxes, and thus are less beneficial as money receivers in an economy.

You are doing the exact thing that a person denying a black man the job is doing. Teens are less wanted because they are less skilled and less responsible. A black man from the projects is not wanted because an owner does not want to deal with loss of productivity of the guy gets shot or w/e.

Plus these jobs should be for teens. We need more factory jobs for people who don't want to go to higher education or w/e. The factory jobs we are not making because cost of living is high. Minimum wage adds to the cost of living.

Who's raising their operating costs or shrinking their profits? Maintaining the current minimum wage isn't, to my understanding, changing anything.

Minimum wage, regulation and higher taxes do lower it the profit and raise operating costs. However the subject is minimum wage.

Wage is part of the cost that makes up the products price. This raises the operating cost. Profit I won't touch since I do not want to derail the thread.

Theres a few points that I dont think you responded to, but I'll readdress them at the end so you can point out your rebuttal/address/concede them.

Now the points I mentioned in the beginning.
1. What incentive do bosses have to begin to respect minorities more.
2. What do you propose would stop the wage of what would now be a minimum wage job from dropping to an average of much less?

Let me know if there are any points you wish for me to elaborate on more or don't factually agree.

1. Several come up right away. Organized minorities can cause huge economic losses. A minority offering a lower wage (why do you think people hire mexicans?) allows the business to be more competitive.
2. Nothing. We don't need to prevent it. We need people working and producing things. Everything else falls into place. How do you think that avg income has went up 4 times in past 20 years in China? They are all working their asses off. In case of China they bring down their Yen and the income goes up. In Americas case dollars would just buy more. Assuming the government does not print money.

Taroth

06-08-2009, 06:22

Spot reserved for tomorrow because I'm tired.

Glad to be able to hold a discussion with someone without ad hominems or derailing. I just realized you also mentioned affirmative action which we can discuss as well. My starting words being that affirmative action is currently a good thing but will ultimately be unnecessary.

Anyway until then, good night.

Aacevedo

06-08-2009, 17:02

Minimum wage is a horrible practice that harms the young and inexperienced. The young and inexperienced labor have nothing else to compete with other than the wage. This skews that benefit towards older demographics and undermines risky groups.

There is no justification for people to defend minimum wage. The jobs that minimum wage effects are the jobs that are not meant to support a family. These jobs are meant for people who need extra income, not primary income. Teenagers, people that work a second job, college students are the ones who take up these jobs.

Since these groups do not have means or desire for legal battles, discrimination goes unpunished in these areas. When you eliminate wage as the means of competition then there is more incentive for the employer to avoid groups that represent greater risk.

Minimum wage shifts the cost to the consumer gaining no net benefit for the target demographic. Minimum wage is a condition that affects all the participants (businesses). Because of this the rise in prices will be proportional to the increase in expenses.

I cant' address the rest of your post since i'm unfamiliar with the race/minorities/ethnics issues in America.

But minimun wage isn't a bad thing at all , we have it here and we are doing fine. When minimun wage it's inteded to be exactly that MINIMUM it set a a base so employers can't abuse employees and employees can negotiate a better salary from that mininum. The problem arises when the minimun is artificially high, then you are hurting business. Every year here this minimum wage is negotiated between Workers and Big Companies representatives, for example this year it's most likely that the minimun wage will not be increased here.

If you don't have minimun wage you open a wide wide window to make bad practices such in America hiring ilegal inmigrants for a a laughable amount of money. If the minimun wage would ok so that American citizens work willingly for that money there is no need to hire ilegals for example.

My point is , if regulated properly, minimun wage is a good thing.

Crying Hyena

06-08-2009, 17:29

On the segregation that was brought up, last time I checked, separate but equal didn't work out so well.

Milo Hobgoblin

06-08-2009, 18:37

If all races and cultures are equal in terms of their ability to produce and work.. racism will eventually die out in terms of hiring and return on labor to the worker.

The reality is this.. I dont care if you like me.. and you shouldnt care if I like you.. all that matters is that you and I give each other a fair and equal chance at a job and pay a fair marketable wage.

You all act as if the market has some devious plot to keep minorities out.. it doesnt. The "market" doesnt "think".. its like the tide.. it simply responds to forces on every level and on a macro level.. all is as it should be UNLESS you artifically manipulate it through excessive and unneccesary regulation.

If you create artifical hiring practices forcing people to hire a minority that really doesnt deserve the job YOU created racism.. because now everyone will be resentful knowing some guy got hired.. not because of his ability.. but simply due to an arbitrary number some pointy headed academic decided was "fair"

but fair to whom?

Many of you cant seem to decide where you stand.. you claim all these corporations are greedy and only care about profits.. then you post on these threads claiming they'll treat whites (or whatever majority is prevalent in the region) preferentially.. as if they just stopped caring about profits and started caring about where your skin color lies on the spectrum... as if that really matters in how much you can produce.

If the ability to produce is as individual as many of you claim.. we should, over time see a NATURAL inclination towards the percentages of ethnic/cultural groups in each society. Unless of course thats not the case.

Do you all really think most companies out there are stupid enough to risk their livlihood over your skin color?? All they care about is how much you're gonna bust your ass .. and how much they'll make off your labor.

You may not like what you see in the workforce.. and you may want to blame "racism".. or claim how its less obvious or gone "underground".. but eventually you will have to face up to the fact that you're just looking for something, that the vast majority of the time.. simply isnt there.

Instead of looking for easy answers.. looking for surface causation.. why dont you start looking at WHY particualr ethnic groups.. especially those with strong cultural influences are underrepresented in certain areas of the workforce.

Some cultures simply DO NOT value education past a certain point.. some do not value strong work ethic.. fidning adherence to family to be above all else.. they will quit their job or drop out of school to take care of sick "auntie" ..

Ive seen families force their 14 year old kids to drop out of 9th grade simply to stay home and take care of their 3 or 4 younger siblings.. and there ARE cultures very highly representative of this.

so if those same cultures are highly underrepresented in say for example... since, the financial sectors.. or engineering.. is it racism?

according to some of you, it is. and you come up with some idiotic plan to counteract it.. like affirmative action? So the VERY few people from that culture who do get an education are GUARANTEED a job.. while those from other ethnicities who will not put education and work aside are never guaranteed anything.

but its okay with some of you.. because its "fair"?

jonyak

06-08-2009, 18:40

affirmitive action is silly.

DocGonzo

06-08-2009, 20:37

the logical fallacies in the OP are apparent to those who look, the historical errors are also clear to those who have studied them

what kills me is the apparent clarity that the OP is mercifully free from the ravages of intelligence by not being able to detect said fallacies due to unthinking slavery of an ideology he does not fully comprehend

Maybe you should write out what you have wrong with the OP(I didn't read it myself), instead of just making a troll comment and then lurking off into a corner.

Milo Hobgoblin

06-08-2009, 20:59

the logical fallacies in the OP are apparent to those who look, the historical errors are also clear to those who have studied them

what kills me is the apparent clarity that the OP is mercifully free from the ravages of intelligence by not being able to detect said fallacies due to unthinking slavery of an ideology he does not fully comprehend

but do carry on, as if it matters somehow....

you like bacon

StrawberryClock

06-08-2009, 21:11

Without reading the explanation, I already strongly agree with your affirmative action part. It lets idiots and people who cannot compete into programs, which takes the place of more qualified people from advantaged minorities as well as the majority.

Many of those people just end up wasting their time and money. What is it, 40% of blacks graduate as opposed to 70% of whites? Not only would they miss out on working but they also are in debt because of it.

Maybe you should write out what you have wrong with the OP(I didn't read it myself), instead of just making a troll comment and then lurking off into a corner.

did i defend affirmative action?

no...did i even give an opinion on it?

no

is it one tiny facet of what the OP was railing against.....yep, but since you admit to not even reading it, further discussion on it's lack of merit is moot beyond endurance due to me being completely bored with poking holes in what passes for the OP's "thought"

have a read yourself, and i think you will find one or two bits that actually resemble reality, misconstrued and malinterpreted, then used as postulates for further leaps of "conclusions"....each error building on the last to the point that even the tiny bits one might agree with are there for the completely wrong reasons

rather than get into a multi page diatribe......again, i'll just hit the "disbelief that there can be so much concentrated stupid in one place" button and move on...

hope that helped

@Milo...i go with the Vinny Vegas opinion on bacon...( i know you meant "pork" in the budgetary sense, but that's just silly in and of itself in a primae facia kind of way)

Vanno

06-09-2009, 00:16

Affirmative action, at the worst, is racist in of itself. At the least, it propagates more racism via resentment or rationalizing. In other words, it is often said by some shlub, denied a position, that the candidate chosen was a token minority. Thus, the idea that no minority can ever truly be assumed to have advanced himself based on merit alone becomes common belief.

Secondly, there is just flat out anger for institutionalized favoritism for one group, and another, none. This doesn't have to pertain to race necessarily.

As for minimum wage, I believe it to be another distorted crusade, full of much emotion and self-fulfilling empathy, but devoid of much objective fact checking. Most people simply live on wages above the federal minimum wage. Of the marginal population earning min-wage, some 50% are teens that live well above poverty level anyway. Job training would be far more effective to cover the remaining .85% of the population working at min wage, would impose less constraints on small businesses, and would probably be prety cheap to administer.

StrawberryClock

06-09-2009, 00:35

Affirmative action, at the worst, is racist in of itself. At the least, it propagates more racism via resentment or rationalizing. In other words, it is often said by some shlub, denied a position, that the candidate chosen was a token minority. Thus, the idea that no minority can ever truly be assumed to have advanced himself based on merit alone becomes common belief.

Secondly, there is just flat out anger for institutionalized favoritism for one group, and another, none. This doesn't have to pertain to race necessarily.

As for minimum wage, I believe it to be another distorted crusade, full of much emotion and self-fulfilling empathy, but devoid of much objective fact checking. Most people simply live on wages above the federal minimum wage. Of the marginal population earning min-wage, some 50% are teens that live well above poverty level anyway. Job training would be far more effective to cover the remaining .85% of the population working at min wage, would impose less constraints on small businesses, and would probably be prety cheap to administer.